Monday, March 20, 2017

If you thought that was bad, the Nazis are now here. They
are in the Trump White House. They are invading the EPA and the Pentagon and
ICE. They are on the steps of the Supreme Court. Rush out to the barricades.
Fight to the last person. We must resist. We must resist. We must resist.

These days the bien
pensant left is fully engaged in the war against Nazis. People who believe
themselves to be intellectual sophisticates have become mindless ranters, indulging their
impotent rage, showing what happens when you allow you emotions to run amok. They
have entered a time warp and are fighting the last war.

In the meantime, the Democratic Party has been aligning
itself with the true heirs to Nazism-- the groups that are hell bent on
murdering Jews, on finishing what Hitler started. That is, with radical Islamic
terrorists. About that group of neo-Nazis, the American left has little say. It
has followed the Obama appeasement policy and will fight to the death to bring
more Muslims into America. And it has turned the Democratic Party against
Israel. Most American Jews thrilled to the prospect of putting Jeremiah Wright’s
protégé in the White House and have not noticed that the Vice Chairman of today’s
Democratic National Committee is a Louis Farrakhan protégé.

Of course, it hasn’t registered. Good liberals and
progressives have been duped into fighting against a Nazi invasion led by white
supremists and Steve Bannon. They know in the core of their being that Bannon,
having led a web media company that systematically defended Israel, is really a
Nazi.

Let’s not forget feminism. The new feminism has been
organizing to fight against the Nazis in the White House. No one much cares but
one of its leaders is a Palestinian activist who wants to bring Shariah Law to
America. More women in headscarves. Now, that’s a great feminist idea. Let’s
emulate the way Saudi Arabia treats women. Another great feminist idea.

Another new feminist leader is a Palestinian terrorist
convicted of murdering Jews in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem. No one notices.
No one cares. American leftists and Jews are mobilized to fight the last war.

I have already written about Linda Sarsour and about Rasmea
Odeh, but today I report Alan Dershowitz’s comments on these new feminist
leaders.

Speaking of the International Women’s Strike for Peace,
Dershowitz remarked on its anti-Semitic manifesto:

It is a
tragedy that this women’s movement — which has done so much good in refocusing
attention on important women’s issues in the United States; from gender
violence, to reproductive rights and equal-pay — has now moved away from its
central mission and gone out of its way to single out one foreign nation by
calling for the "decolonization of Palestine." Not of Tibet. Not of
Kurdistan. Not of Ukraine. Not of Cyprus. Only Palestine.

The
platform, which is published on IWS’ website under the headline "Antiracist and
Anti-imperialist Feminism" also says, "we want to
dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to
Palestine." No mention is made of the walls that imprison gays in Iran,
dissidents in China, feminists in Gaza or Kurds in Turkey. Only the walls
erected by Israel.

Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian activist who was a lead
organizer of the post-inauguration Women’s March declared in The Nation that no
good feminist could support Israel:

“When
you talk about feminism you’re talking about the rights of all women and their
families to live in dignity, peace, and security. It’s about giving women
access to health care and other basic rights. And Israel is a country that
continues to occupy territories in Palestine, has people under siege at checkpoints
— we have women who have babies on checkpoints because they’re not able to get
to hospitals [in time]. It just doesn’t make any sense for someone to say, ‘Is
there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it
in the movement?’ There can’t be in feminism. You either stand up for the
rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There’s just no way
around it."

Of course, everyone on the left is burning up over the Nazis
in the White House. So they are ignoring what is happening in their own midst:

The
real choice to be made now by all those who care about the feminist cause is
whether to allow Sarsour and her radical anti-Israel allies to hijack the
movement in support of their own bigoted views. The alternative is to maintain
feminism’s focus on key issues that pertain to women and to call out countries
and movements according to how seriously they violate women’s rights, rather
than singling out the one Jewish democracy — Israel.

President Obama created
an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel. He made a
nuclear deal with Iran and refused to veto the United Nations Security Council
resolution in December that condemned settlements in the disputed West Bank.

Hillary
Clinton might have been an improvement, but her commitment to Israel has
long been questioned. As secretary of state, she referred to Israeli
settlements as “illegitimate.” In 2015 she had to reassure donors to her
presidential campaign that she still supported Israel. Even during Bill
Clinton’s administration, pro-Israel Democrats worried that Mrs. Clinton would
influence her husband in the wrong direction.

It ought to be well known that the radical European left has
long supported the Palestinian cause. You cannot belong to a radical leftist
political party or political movement in Europe unless you are willing to do
everything in your power to delegitimize the state of Israel.

The great conundrum in all this is simple: why have American
Jews continued to support the Democratic Party? Barack Obama stabbed Israel in
the back at the UN, as Dershowitz put it, and Jews voted for Hillary Clinton en
masse. They continue to support the Democratic Party.

One
reason Democrats have continued the move away from Israel is that Jewish voters
haven’t exacted a price for it. Exit polls in 2016 found they supported Mrs.
Clinton over Mr. Trump, 71% to 23%, in line with their historic levels of
Democratic support.

Are Jewish Democrats sufficiently enlightened to turn toward
the Republican Party? Stein and Schoen believe that the Trump administration
can make the way easier:

There’s
still an opportunity here for the GOP. Especially if Mr. Trump delivers on his
promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the Jewish vote could start
trending Republican. Unless Democrats reaffirm their support for Israel, many
lifelong party members—ourselves included—may decide that the time has come to
find new political affiliations.

Right now, of course, they are so blinded by their hatred of
Nazis and are so involved in fighting against the Vichy government that they
are very easy to manipulate.

10 comments:

Former friends of mine are so completely irrational about Pres. Trump and republicans they do not notice the creeping sharia all around. Reality is not registering with them. God knows what it will take for them to wake up.

Douglas Schoen: There’s still an opportunity here for the GOP. Especially if Mr. Trump delivers on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the Jewish vote could start trending Republican.

What silliness. Why would American Jews care if the U.S. Embassy was in Jerusalem?!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/middleeast/donald-trump-us-embassy-israel-explainer/---Every president since 1995 -- Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama -- has declined to move the embassy, citing national security interests. Every six months, the president has used the presidential waiver to circumvent the embassy move. The next time it will come up for review is May....The powerful Iraqi Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, warned Tuesday in a statement on his website that the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem is a declaration of open war against Islam. He called for the closure of the Israeli and US embassies in Islamic countries.---

Well, that's a very overt threat. So if the U.S. wants more war against Islamic nations, we should move the embassy.

And of course, no one likes being told what they can't do, so naturally powerful nations like the U.S. would prefer to prove we're not puppets of Islamic clerics.

Really, those clerics need to learn a little reverse psychology.

They really need to desensitize themselves. Perhaps they should create "Mock Muhammad" coloring books to to Muslim children everywhere. Maybe the next generation will be a little more laid back?

Oh! Here's a start, but kids usually need more structure than this.http://brianvandeputte.com/Muhammad-Coloring-Book

p.s. Vox has a new video, recognizing that we don't process risk properly, overestimating certain dangers, and media contributes, and leaders are encouraged to offer symbolic fixes that don't actually reduce risks. Edward Felten called this "Security theater"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZohjYKGZJM This is your brain on terrorism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_theater Security theater is the practice of investing in countermeasures intended to provide the feeling of improved security while doing little or nothing to actually achieve it.

I admit, the biggest danger to the U.S. courts blocking Trump's immigration bans is that its a win-win for Trump. If nothing happens, he looks strong because he's doing his proper "Security theater" role, and if there is even the smallest terrorist activity, even activity that has nothing to do with the 7 banned countries, i.e., the ban would have changed nothing, he'll use that as proof of the threat, and perhaps it'll be used as an excuse for an ever larger overreaction on the "Security theater".

So this is where blocking Trump may be "penny wise, pound foolish", stopping a little 3 month ban, and perhaps ending up with something more draconic, and equally ineffectual.

I can't tell if the "Russia fears" on the Left influencing the election are equally dangerous. Certainly it is convenient to those on the opposition who prefer to discount Trump's victory and discount the issues that encouraged people to vote for him.

In all cases, we are best off depending on experts, people who recognize their own "fear biases" and don't allow those feelings to overwhelm them, and hopefully they can look more objectively at the dangers and the statistical risks, and trust they'll see things in a better balance with other risks.

I do see there are different sorts of "expert" and everyone wants to stay they're getting expert advice, while those experts may only be looking at part of the problem, and their solutions may increase future conflict.

Its easy enough to say Trump is right - we can't ever take in enough refugees to the need from civil wars and ethnic wars around the world, and its better to help people live safely elsewhere, rather than saying we're doing something when we take in 0.01% of them. So relocation can't be a sufficient solution, even if those 0.01% might be those who find the solutions in the future when the rest of us are at wit's end. They'll know what they left behind, and they won't be as self-absorbed as the rest of us in our comfortable homes watching the news of places we don't want to be.

Once again: if Hitler were non-white, my fellow members of The Tribe would be fighting for first place in line for the ovens. And it will always be this way until we die out because we allowed our women to pursue their "careers" and eat, pray, love rather than have babies.

This is all related to the extreme fear, contempt, and anger that many educated/urban/upper-middle-class people demonstrate toward Christians and rural people (especially southerners.) I discussed the phenomenon in my post The Phobia(s) That May Destroy America:

Historian Yaffa Eliach wrote that some of the Jews of her Lithuanian home town were relieved when the Germans drove the Russians out in 1941 because in WWI, once the Germans ran the Russians out in 1915 the Germans had behaved much more decently than the Russians.

It is very, very dangerous to mportant to forget that friends and enemies can change, and that a label only tells you so much. “German soldier” meant something very different in 1941 than it had in 1915, and "Democrat" means something very different today than it meant in 1962.